MAGA - the Truth

[ajax18]

How did Jesus the Christ support himself during his earthly ministry?

not through coerced government taxation if that's what your asking. Nobody who chose not to give was incarcerated. There's no government program that can allow you to heal the sick and raise the dead with a word, feed 5,000 with a few small barley loaves and five fishes. That takes personal holiness almost beyond comprehension. I seriously doubt the Pharisees were giving him a monthly stipend.

[honorentheos]

*Ananias and Sapphira enter the chat.

Ananias and sapphira were more like an ancient version of the Biden family. They say, "Oh yes, we believe in doing our patriotic duty and giving our fair share. That's what drives us to get out and work hard, pure altruism. Then it turns out that not only had they made their financial gains through influence pedaling, they spent their lives with drugs and whores and never did an honest days work their entire lives.

Take the wealthy young ruler for example. Jesus invited him to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and come follow Him. That is the doctrine Christ. When the young ruler couldn't quite get it and declined the offer, Christ didn't have his followers tie him up and confiscate his property because he probably inherited most of it anyway. That's the doctrine of Schmo, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, not the doctrine of Christ.

You do realize that you are manipulating scripture to match your personal philosophy? And there is a source for that in Mormonism?

The church that originated your religion was not one compatible with your anarcho-conservative views. Why? Because the leaders who came up with it lived off the labor of the people and were very interested in command economies managed by church authority.

You don't know what you're talking about, Ajax.

Anyway, here's what Acts has to say:

Acts 4:32-36; 5:1-11
New International Version

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 5


1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

[honorentheos]

Christian charity and helping the poor, destitute and starving temporarily to get to a point of self-sufficiency is not equivalent to communism or evil. Showing compassion for people and helping them out of a hole or a bad situation not entirely of their making is not communistic or evil. Neither is a willingness to share one's good fortune with neighbors and loved ones.

Communism is a diabolical counterfeit that the devil tries to equate with Christianity. What you don't understand is the difference between the two. Christianity allows the earner/worker to decide when and if to give away his earnings.

Bringing this forward so you can remember how wrong you are.

[huckelberry]

Ajax I do not remember where in the Bible, Book or Mormon or D&C that says it is not ok for the government to send disabled individuals social security disability. I realize that you do not care for that program but I am pretty sure it is not against any scripture.

It appears that the earliest Christians tried a sort of socialism but it did not last. I suspect because they did not solve the problem of maintaining and developing means of production. Some variety of capitalism is probably better for that.

Communism is something else. In that system the government has ownership of the means of production and controls labor and investment. In communism if a person does not like to work they do not get hand outs from the government they are sent to labor camps where they have to work. No free lunch people have to work.

I do not think the government policy in the US that you do not like has anything to do with communism, socialism or totalitarianism. It is policy decided by a representative free government that you would prefer to be decided differently.

By the way if the government helps some people in need that does not prevent freely given help from individuals to happen. I think society is better off with both kinds of help being involved.

[Gunnar]

At least you're not telling me that we should cut all military spending in favor of welfare spending anymore. Unfortunately your foreign policy has led to idiotic outcomes like paying money to both Israel and Hamas in the current middle east conflict? Just a quick question, how is that putting the interests of the American taxpayer first?

I never said that we should cut all military spending in favor of welfare spending, yet I wish we lived in a world where military spending was no longer needed. But I do think a compassionate government has a legitimate role in helping to reduce poverty and provide and coordinate equitable distribution of healthcare for all, and opportunities for education. I can't believe there is any justice or sense in subsidizing already wealthy corporations and individuals, especially when the obvious aim is to elicit political donations for campaign contributions and individual politicians and parties in exchange for tax cuts, policies and corporate welfare that mainly benefit the donors' own selfish avarice, in detriment to almost everyone else. I agree that injudicious contributions to Israel without holding them accountable for improper and unjust use of that money has tended to aggravate the tensions instead of promoting peace is wrong. There is plenty of fault on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Palestinians are currently hurting the most, both from Israeli bigotry and intolerance and that of Hamas, their own leaders and other radical religious groups. Our policies towards both Israel and Palestinians should be focused mostly on encouraging mutual tolerance and peace between the two groups and getting them to accept that they would both benefit immensely from living and working together.

As I have often said before, conservatives are not actually opposed to re-distribution of wealth per se. They are only opposed to reversing the current direction of that re-distribution from the poorest classes of society to the wealthiest and greediest!

I still stand by that. That is obviously the aim of conservatives, and it is inherently immoral and unfair.

We believe in equality of opportunity. You believe in equality of result.

I certainly agree with you about equality of opportunity, but I certainly to not believe in guaranteeing equality of result, only on striving for a level playing field while recognizing that some need more help than others.

Showing compassion for and willingness to help the less fortunate is what Christ, himself, requires of us.

Do you have a problem with that? I don't think Christ does.

Nobody who is forced upon penalty of imprisonment to sign over their paycheck to the government is willingly showing compassion to help the less fortunate. And the fact is that most people voting for increased taxes are doing so under the false belief that these taxes will be imposed only upon people wealthier than themselves.

Who is claiming that taxes should be imposed only on people wealthier than themselves? But I don't think that the uber wealthy should pay less than their share of taxes than poor people. As it is now some of the wealthiest of us are getting away with paying far less taxes than the less wealthy and, in some cases, none at all due to loopholes in tax laws and policies established at the behest of the wealthy donors. I don't think it reasonable that the uber wealthy who already have more money than they know what to do with should be entitled to enormous tax breaks.

Gunnar I do see you as a kind of Jimmy Carter like figure. I believe Jimmy Carter was a good man. But his policies led to very bad outcomes for the American people.

What proof do you have of that? What bad outcomes are you talking about? I think Carter was a very underrated and underappreciated President and that his worth would only have become more obvious had he served a second term. Reagan screwed him over by negotiating a deal with Iran to not release the hostages while Carter was still president.

Jimmy did believe in sacrificing his own fortune and lifestyle to help others in a Christlike way. He did it of his own volition, not because somebody raised his taxes.

Few would disagree that that is probably the most admirable thing about him.

Even if there really is to be a second coming of Christ, which will almost certainly never happen, there is no excuse for delaying striving to correct the problems we face and making this a world a safer, greener, freer, more democratic, less despotic, more compassionate, and less polluted world. Waiting for the second coming of Christ to address these problems will have devastating consequences for the entire planet, whether or not there ever is an actual second coming of Christ.

As for living the United Order, I see no essential difference between that and pure communism, nor do I think that either one of those is truly workable.

[Gunnar]

By the way if the government helps some people in need that does not prevent freely given help from individuals to happen . I think society is better off with both kinds of help being involved.

I certainly agree with that. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

[Jersey Girl]

How did Jesus the Christ support himself during his earthly ministry?

not through coerced government taxation if that's what your asking. Nobody who chose not to give was incarcerated. There's no government program that can allow you to heal the sick and raise the dead with a word, feed 5,000 with a few small barley loaves and five fishes. That takes personal holiness almost beyond comprehension. I seriously doubt the Pharisees were giving him a monthly stipend.

How about answer the question.

[Gadianton]

Ajax,

Imagine two different possible worlds. In one world, Nikki Haley is president. Suppose a home today under Biden is 400,000$. With the anticipated policy of a president like Haley, what will today's 400k house cost in three years? In world two, Trump is president again. How much will an average house cost under Trump in 3 years? We're assuming that the overall macro outlook is similar to what it is today. And of course feel free to include the estimate for Harris as well.

[ajax18]

Not through coerced government taxation if that's what your asking. Nobody who chose not to give was incarcerated. There's no government program that can allow you to heal the sick and raise the dead with a word, feed 5,000 with a few small barley loaves and five fishes. That takes personal holiness almost beyond comprehension. I seriously doubt the Pharisees were giving him a monthly stipend.

How about answer the question.

I don't know Jersey Girl. He once said, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." He stayed in the homes of fellow believers. He wore clothes made by his mother. He went without purse or scrip as many missionaries did. In my opinion he always asked for help rather than demanding it upon penalty of law. He never stole anything from anyone. What is your opinion?

[ajax18]

, especially when the obvious aim is to elicit political donations for campaign contributions and individual politicians and parties in exchange for tax cuts, policies and corporate welfare that mainly benefit the donors' own selfish avarice, in detriment to almost everyone else.

What actually hurts almost everyone else in America is when companies take their capital overseas to countries or even other states with more favorable tax policy.

Who is claiming that taxes should be imposed only on people wealthier than themselves? But I don't think that the uber wealthy should pay less than their share of taxes than poor people. As it is now some of the wealthiest of us are getting away with paying far less taxes than the less wealthy and, in some cases, none at all due to loopholes in tax laws and policies established at the behest of the wealthy donors. I don't think it reasonable that the uber wealthy who already have more money than they know what to do with should be entitled to enormous tax breaks.

Gunnar I do see you as a kind of Jimmy Carter like figure. I believe Jimmy Carter was a good man. But his policies led to very bad outcomes for the American people.

What proof do you have of that? What bad outcomes are you talking about? I think Carter was a very underrated and underappreciated President and that his worth would only have become more obvious had he served a second term. Reagan screwed him over by negotiating a deal with Iran to not release the hostages while Carter was still president.

Even if there really is to be a second coming of Christ, which will almost certainly never happen,

Pardon me, but I'm not going to take counsel on what a real Christian is from someone who believes that. I've already explained to you why neither democratic socialism nor communism make people more compassionate. Neither was Jesus Christ a militant Bolshevik. Unlike Bernie Sanders who owns three homes and undoubtedly has vast sums of hidden wealth, Jesus Christ didn't even have a house and he certainly didn't advocate being generous with someone else's money as Bernie does. Democratic socialism is the antithesis of making the people of the world more free or governments more democratic. Even RFK sees this.